State Republicans asking Justice Protasiewicz to step aside
MADISON, Wis. (WLAX/WEUX) – State Republicans are asking liberal justice Janet Protasiewicz to step aside in a pending case that could overturn the 2011 law that effectively ended collective bargaining for state workers. Last month, a Dane County judge overturned the bulk of the law saying it violates equal protection guarantees in the Wisconsin Constitution.
Under the ruling, workers who lost their collective bargaining power would have it restored to what it was before 2011. That judge has put the ruling on hold pending an appeal. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has not decided if it will take the case
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
California lawmaker warns Menendez brothers' case is driving return of bill to release thousands of killers
A California lawmaker blames the attention on the Menendez brothers' case for prompting a bill to resurface that could put thousands of killers back on the streets. "California Democrats just opened the prison gates for over 1,600 cold-blooded killers," Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones, a Republican, shared in a statement with Fox News Digital. "Democrat lawmakers have proven time and time again they don't care about the victim or their family. They don't care about keeping the public safe. They care about defending killers." Jones added what makes this move even more interesting was the timing of it. "As soon as the Menendez brothers' situation started trending, all of a sudden this bill comes up again," Jones said. "And it's really a very kind of cynical effort to get caught up in that wave of social media, media attention, the press cycle for building somebody's name. ... So, we're opposed to this bill. "It's a shameless attempt to ride a wave of social media sympathy with zero regard for the thousands of other brutal killers their bill could unleash." Jones said, unlike some of his Democratic counterparts, Republicans in California and the Senate are committed to keeping Californians safe. "And the way we do that is by keeping these violent felons locked up in prison where they belong," Jones said. "Dangerous Democrats are playing politics with public safety." Jones said the move to resentence Lyle and Erik Menendez, who were serving life in prison without parole for the 1989 murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, was not the right action to take. "It's pretty straightforward to me. These people were convicted of very heinous murders with a sentence of life without parole. And for us to go back on that sentencing now and then the victims to be re-victimized, the families of the murdered, to have to continuously relive this is unconscionable to me," Jones explained. Jones added what doesn't make sense in all this is Gov. Gavin Newsom's Democratic Party continues to push to protect perpetrators instead of victims and using the Menendez brothers' case to get their bill across the finish line. "I think the legislators from LA are taking advantage of that news cycle and the social media attention that is coming from this. They think they're gonna get some Hollywood stars to come up to Sacramento and testify on this bill to promote it. I don't think that's going to happen," Jones explained. Jones was speaking about SB 672, also known as the Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act, which is a California bill that would allow individuals sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed before the age of 26 to request a parole hearing after serving at least 25 years. The state Senate passed SB 672 Tuesday by a 24-11 vote. The proposal now heads to the Assembly. The bill, introduced by Democratic Sen. Susan Rubio, was amended to exclude criminals convicted of certain offenses the chance to seek parole, including those who killed a law enforcement officer or carried out a mass shooting at a school, among other offenses. "Sacramento's love affair with criminals doesn't seem to be letting up, even after 70% of Californians made it clear they wanted lawmakers to crack down on crime. Now, the state Senate is trying to let convicted murderers out of jail early," Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican candidate for California governor, shared in a statement after the bill's passage in the Senate. "It's also amazing that once the Menendez brothers found a way to apply for parole, the legislators here still doubled down and continued to push the bill through," Jones added. "And, again, it goes back to Gavin Newsom and the Democrats in California protecting perpetrators and ignoring victims." The previous bill, SB 94, would have given certain inmates serving life without parole a chance to petition to have sentences reviewed if crimes were committed before June 5, 1990, but it stalled in the legislature and did not move forward. Newsom's office told Fox News Digital it typically does not comment on pending legislation. Rubio's office told Fox News Digital she is "disappointed" some lawmakers are sharing false information. "It is unfortunate that the bill has been grossly misrepresented. I am disappointed that my friends from the other side of the aisle continue to peddle misinformation when, out of respect for them, I went over in detail what the bill does and does not do. I invited them to give me input, and the invitation is still open," Rubio's office shared in a statement. During Erik and Lyle Menendez's resentencing hearing last month, both shared emotional testimony, admitting "full responsibility" for their parents' murders after a bombshell decision by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic to resentence them. The resentencing hearing came after the brothers filed a habeas corpus petition in May 2023 citing new evidence of sexual assault. Former Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón then filed a motion for resentencing in October 2024. Both filings followed the passage of AB 600, a California law allowing for resentencing of long-convicted inmates to align with current law. "There's all kinds of special circumstances, that's what a lot of these murders are called, special circumstances that, really, these people don't deserve to ever be out of prison," Jones said. Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman said "justice should never be swayed by spectacle" after the judge's decision. "The decision to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez was a monumental one that has significant implications for the families involved, the community and the principles of justice," Hochman said in a news release. "Our office's motions to withdraw the resentencing motion filed by the previous administration ensured that the court was presented with all the facts before making such a consequential decision. "The case of the Menendez brothers has long been a window for the public to better understand the judicial system. This case, like all cases — especially those that captivate the public — must be viewed with a critical eye. Our opposition and analysis ensured that the court received a complete and accurate record of the facts. Justice should never be swayed by spectacle." The brothers remain in prison but are now eligible for parole. They have a parole board hearing scheduled for August. Jones said the Menendez brothers are "getting special attention by the media and the Democrat leadership, who are really out of touch with everyday Californians." "Look, promoting this and pushing this idea is opening a Pandora's box for 1,600 other special circumstance murderers that are in prison right now, and I just can't support moving in a direction that allows so many of those people out on parole," Jones said. "I would argue if (the Menendez brothers) are truly rehabilitated, which I have some doubts about that, but if they are, then maybe the best place for them is in prison, where they can mentor and help other people that are coming into the prison system to get their lives turned around too." Jones added that releasing Erik and Lyle Menendez is not a risk he is willing to get behind. "As a society, do we want to really take the risk of letting these two out or any of the other 1,600 special circumstance murders that we don't know by name but are in prison for the same sentence? Do we really want to roll the dice and take the risk of allowing these people out and having the opportunity for any more victims in California? And I think the answer is a resounding no," Jones said. Stepheny Price is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business. She covers topics including missing persons, homicides, national crime cases, illegal immigration, and more. Story tips and ideas can be sent to
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy
Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy | Opinion There's no other takeaway from this other than: We were happy to pay Musk whatever he wanted as long as he loved Trump, but the minute he stopped loving Trump, we can easily stop paying him. Show Caption Hide Caption 'Two big egos.' Americans not surprised by Trump-Musk feud Americans across the country say they're not surprised by the public feud between President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Aside from being globally cathartic, the all-too-predictable breakup of President Donald Trump's unquenchable ego and Elon Musk's immense sense of self-importance pulled the dressing-room curtain back on the Republican Party. And what we saw was both cringeworthy and indecent. Or as I like to call it, the Republican Party. Here are three things this episode of 'Real Annoying Billionaires of Washington, DC' taught us about the conservatives who excitedly welcomed Musk – and his money – into politics: 1. Trump and GOP used taxpayers' money to purchase Elon Musk's support As the president and the weirdo billionaire hurled insults at each other on June 5, Trump posted this threat: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' Gee, I wonder who, up until June 5, was helping Musk grease the wheels to line up 'Billions and Billions of Dollars' in additional government contracts? As The New York Times reported in March: 'Within the Trump administration's Defense Department, Elon Musk's SpaceX rocketry is being trumpeted as the nifty new way the Pentagon could move military cargo rapidly around the globe. In the Commerce Department, SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet service will now be fully eligible for the federal government's $42 billion rural broadband push, after being largely shut out during the Biden era. … And at the Federal Aviation Administration and the White House itself, Starlink satellite dishes have recently been installed, to expand federal government internet access.' Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? How quickly Trump went from filling Musk's coffers to repay him for his support and campaign contributions to suggesting Musk's contracts were, in fact, a form of government waste and fraud. (I mean … they are a form of government waste and fraud, but not in the way Trump was suggesting.) There's no other takeaway from this other than: We were happy to pay Musk whatever he wanted as long as he loved Trump, but the minute he stopped loving Trump, we can easily stop paying him. I think there's a word for that. 2. Elon Musk, despite all the tush-kissing, never liked or respected Donald Trump Musk's swift about-face on Trump shows what many of us have long suspected: Republicans or Republicans-of-convenience like Musk don't actually like or respect Trump. On Feb. 7, Musk posted on social media: 'I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man.' On June 5, Musk posted: '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Going from 'I love you, man' to 'I'm alleging you're connected to a notorious sex offender who was facing child sex trafficking charges before he died of suicide in jail' is quite a journey. And it implies that Musk saw Trump for what he is: a useful, loathsome fool. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. The minute Trump became not useful to Musk, he sang his truth, something I'd bet most Republicans would do if they had untold wealth and didn't have to worry much about repercussions. That tells you all you need to know about the modern-day GOP – liars boosting a lout in their own self-interest. 3. DOGE was nonsense, and Republicans never really liked Musk For all its fanfare, the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency that Musk oversaw accomplished precious little cost-cutting while inflicting massive harm on America's global reputation, the lives of people reliant on U.S. aid, and the overall functioning of the federal government. Republicans knew this yet still tripped over themselves to toss roses at Musk's feet, hailing him as some kind of genius/savior. They wanted his money, and they wanted the disinformation cannon that comes with his right-wing social media platform. But when Musk grew wise to what Republican lawmakers were doing with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – a deficit-ballooning monstrosity – he turned on his handmaidens and his former love, President Trump. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. So Trump, of course, called him crazy. Which begs the question: Why were you letting a crazy person access Americans' most private data and demolish the federal workforce? And are you now going to … you know … make sure the guy you think is crazy didn't do something catastrophically bad? Congressional Republicans had to pick a side, and they've largely stepped into Trump's arms, knowing Musk may well be disliked even more than the sitting president. The Washington Post reported June 6: 'Across the government, the Trump administration is scrambling to rehire many federal employees dismissed under DOGE's staff-slashing initiatives after wiping out entire offices, in some cases imperiling key services such as weather forecasting and the drug approval process.' Translation: Musk's DOGE nonsense was for naught, an attempt to fluff a billionaire's ego while cloaking the high-spending, deficit-raising moves Republicans were going to make all along. There's a sucker born every minute, and two Republicans to take 'em. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's No Tax On Tips Crusade Could Backfire
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Ending federal income taxes on tips, one of President Donald Trump's signature campaign pledges in the 2024 election, could potentially backfire as Americans grow weary of tipping, experts have told Newsweek. No tax on tips was something the president said he would enact "first thing" if he won the November election. The idea, launched in the service industry behemoth that is Las Vegas, quickly took hold with the electorate, so much so that his Democratic opponent Kamala Harris was quick to pledge the same relief for tipped workers should she win the White House race. Fast forward 5 months into the second Trump administration, the pledge hasn't yet been enacted, but the idea is certainly beginning to take shape. As part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Republicans have proposed a new tax deduction on tipped income up to $160,000 while keeping payroll taxes that are used to pay for Social Security and Medicare. Other legislative efforts have also been made. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, along with a bipartisan group of co-sponsors, introduced the No Tax on Tips Act to Congress in January, which would establish a new tax deduction of up to $25,000 for tips, subject to certain restrictions. "Whether it passes free-standing or as part of the bigger bill, one way or another, 'No Tax on Tips' is going to become law and give real relief to hardworking Americans," Cruz said on the Senate floor. The bill passed the chamber in May with support from both parties. Lawmakers are clearly keen on the idea, and the proposal is certainly popular with the American public, too. Polling conducted exclusively for Newsweek by Redfield & Wilton Strategies back in July 2024 showed that 67 percent of Americans do not believe tips given to service workers should be taxed. But the proposal, if enacted, could have some unintended consequences, business experts have told Newsweek. Tipping Culture Fatigue Javier Palomarez, founder and CEO of the United States Hispanic Business Council, told Newsweek the policy could "reinforce tipping in the short term but erode it over time," pointing to a growing phenomenon of tipping fatigue—a weariness among consumers increasingly asked to tip in situations where it wasn't previously expected. A BankRate survey conducted between April and May this year found that 41 percent of Americans believe tipping is "out of control" and that businesses should better compensate their employees instead of relying on gratuities to provide a wage. Thirty-eight percent reported being annoyed with pre-entered tip screens, which are usually used in automated checkouts, particularly in cafes or fast food restaurants. Still, the generosity of many Americans could pull through, at least for a short while. "By framing tips as a tax-free bonus, the policy may temporarily boost the perceived generosity and importance of tipping, encouraging consumers to view it as a more impactful way to support service workers," Palomarez said. Composite image created by Newsweek. Composite image created by Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva But it's unlikely to be straightforward. "Cultural norms around tipping are sticky," he said. "By signaling that tipped workers deserve special tax treatment, the policy may further divide and complicate service industry compensation norms—bolstering tips in some sectors like restaurants while emphasizing reform calls in others like delivery services or app-based platforms. Over time, this could lead to service charges or higher base pay as consumers question tipping." Speaking to Newsweek, Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer's Tax and Accounting Division North America, warned that "the perception that tipped employees have a tax advantage may discourage tipping or at least the same amount of tipping by customers who are fully taxed on their incomes." Pay Boost for Workers While tipping fatigue is certainly on the rise, the pay boost for workers in the service industry is tangible. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has estimated that middle-income households could pocket an extra $1,800 per year under the plan. Joseph Camberato, CEO at emphasized that the policy is not necessarily designed to address tipping culture—for all its pros and cons—at large. "We've all seen those 'tip' prompts at self-checkout machines for things you grabbed off a shelf yourself," Camberato told Newsweek. "This policy doesn't fix that, and honestly, it's not meant to. It's for the 1.8 million restaurant servers who rely on tips to pay their bills. For them, not getting taxed on that income is a big deal. This policy targets the right group and gives them a meaningful raise, basically overnight." He added, "If anything, it's going to help the people who deserve tips the most like servers, bartenders, hospitality workers, walk away with more money. Remember, they usually get taxed 15 to 20 percent on tips. Take that off the table, and it's like giving them a 15 to 20 percent raise. "If you're already a tipper, you're not suddenly going to stop because of this bill. But the person on the other side of the transaction is going to be walking away with more money, and that's the point."
